Become a Fan

November 02, 2018

What Would Jesus Protest? Zachary Shilston

What Would Jesus Protest? Why, as a Christian, I will not be supporting “Jesus for NZ” and may even stand against it

Next week the “Jesus for NZ” protest is coming to town. To the steps of Parliament, to be exact. If you’re moving in Christian circles, chances are you’ve heard of it. Chances are you’ve been told to come along.

It’s a stand, so we’re told, for Christianity, for Jesus. Protesting the fact that Hon Trevor Mallard, Speaker of the House, changed Parliament’s opening prayer, removing the name of Jesus.

I want to begin in humility, by acknowledging that each of us, as followers of Jesus, is on a journey in learning to listen to and follow him. Each of us must follow our own conscience and what we feel to be the leading of His Spirit. Faithful followers of Jesus can differ in how they understand the particulars of following God in certain circumstances, and I commit to loving and honoring my brothers and sisters who both choose to attend and not to attend the protest.

However, having said all that, I also want to share why I will not be supporting it. I do this not to attack my brothers and sisters who do, but rather to start a conversation about what it means for us to follow Jesus in our society. I hope that if you disagree with me you are willing to be open to listening to what I have to say, but also to sharing your thoughts with me. I hope we can both learn, and that conversation on these things can bring us closer to Christ.

I ‘ve named this post What would Jesus protest? The reason I used this title is because I believe there are things about the “Jesus for NZ” protest that Jesus would not protest for. I am going to talk about two things that I do not think Jesus would protest for that this protest majors on.1.) – I firmly believe that Jesus would not protest to maintain a religious ritual2.) – I firmly believe that Jesus would not protest for cultural Christian domination of society.

Let me explain.

Jesus would not protest for empty religious ritual

Firstly, I think it’s pretty clear that Jesus had no time for empty religious ritual. He called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs” for their outward practices of religion that reflected no inner life. He taught his disciples to follow him simply, with strong emphasis on the heart behind all religious activity, like prayer or giving. This is a claim which I hope nearly all Christians find uncontroversial.

I want to make it clear that, in my opinion, the opening prayer in Parliament is nothing more than an empty religious ritual.

All MPs, the large majority of whom hold no faith in Christ, listen (and yawn) while the Speaker reads out the standardized, mechanically memorized prayer to begin each Parliamentary session. This prayer may have meaning to some MPs. Some hold a faith in Christ and genuinely pray for his blessing on our nation. Others reverence the prayer simply for its tradition and/or connection to others’ beliefs. However, for many MPs it is simply a ritual, a task that must be completed before they can begin their work.

More importantly, the prayer is not about the personal experience of the listeners. It is about the maintenance of an outward show of the Christian faith, and this show comes at the hands of the Speaker. Trevor Mallard, our current Speaker, (and many of those of the recent past) is not a follower of Jesus. The name of Jesus is not spiritually significant for him. He is not actually praying for Jesus to bless and protect our country, and if he were it would have no effect. I’m actually a bit surprised that this is not viewed as harmful by more Christians – forcing the Speaker to take the Lord’s name in vain anyone? This is not the same as Christians gathering at Parliament to pray for our politicians. This is not the same as Christian MPs coming together to pray. Both of these represent an authentic call to Jesus from believers. Both hold power. Opening Parliament with prayer does not hold the same meaning, because the Speaker does not actually believe anything when he uses the name of Jesus.

Would Jesus care about this kind of prayer? Would he consider it worth maintaining? I don’t think so. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray he set things in what I think is an important order.As all my Christian readers will know, he began,

Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your nameYour kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus’ model is this – all true prayer comes out of a heart which both glorifies God and submits to him. Anything else is empty ritual. Why should we then believe that Trevor Mallard’s prayer is valuable for our country?

So, what?

So, what is the reason for this prayer? If we agree that it has no spiritual significance, then what does it signify?

This is what I mentioned before. It is about maintaining an outward show of religion, of New Zealand being an ostensibly Christian country. It is a carry-over from a history of cultural Christianity. Some Christians I know defend it on this front – saying that having a prayer at Parliament should be supported because it commemorates the history of Christianity in New Zealand.

There is for me a strong danger in this opinion. The prayer is made about celebrating and commemorating that Christianity was the dominant religion in our country, rather than anything to do with honoring Christ. Protesting for the continuation of the opening prayer at Parliament thus becomes an exercise in asserting Christian cultural dominance. Maintaining the prayer is symbolically claiming that, as Christians, we have a right for our political system to recognize faith in Jesus above all other belief, simply because we have historically had majority support for cultural Christianity in New Zealand. This is wrong for me on a number of different levels.

Firstly, this is a current political question. Clearly, we do not any longer live in a society where the majority of people are followers of Jesus (if we ever did). We do not any longer even live in a society that is majority culturally Christian. The idea that our government should privilege Christianity over other belief in any way is strange to me in this context. What right do we have to say that our religion should be legitimized in a prayer at Parliament, while others’ belief (or non-belief) is not?

I feel the need to use some strong language on this, so I apologize in advance if this offends, but hear me out. For me, advocating for Christianity to be politically recognized and promoted in a way that other worldviews are not, acts as prejudice against those of other beliefs. I know that many Christians do not see it that way. We argue that the promotion of Christianity does not hurt anyone else, but we do this from a place of privilege, where we can scarcely imagine the shoe being on the other foot. If this is your view, I ask you to imagine living in a country where the government consistently prayed to a God other than your own. I hope you can readily see how this would make you feel like an outsider. I hope you can see how you might come to resent the majority religion and whatever belief they held.

Trevor Mallard, by using a prayer that does not explicitly pay reference to any one belief, is attempting to foster harmony between those of all faiths. He is saying that the government should not be seen to represent any one faith in any way, but to represent New Zealanders of all faiths and worldviews. To me this is positive in a diverse society like ours is today.

However, putting aside the question from a political point of view, let me go back to my main thrust in this blog – “Would Jesus support a protest to maintain prayer in Parliament on these grounds?” This is the more salient point for those of us who are believers. We all seek to follow Jesus. WWJD?

Jesus would not protest for cultural Christian domination of society

The second (and probably major) reason why I do not think Jesus would support the protest on Tuesday and the main reason that I will not be going myself, is because I do not think that Jesus’ kingdom vision is achieved through domination and/or seeking recognition from the world.

It is pretty universally acknowledged among believers that Jesus’ first coming was not about setting up an earthly kingdom. Most of the Jews at that time were looking for the Messiah to be an earthly King to overthrow the Romans, but Jesus repeatedly refused that role. He allowed himself to be humble, to death, even death on a cross as the apostle Paul puts it, even though he had all power to prevent that from happening. He declared at his trial that his kingdom was “not of this world.” He was the king who came not triumphantly riding horses with an army, but on a donkey. He stopped his disciples from defending him with violence, even to the point of healing Malchus’ ear. In my view the evidence is very clear that Jesus’ kingdom was meant to rise organically from within society, rather than be imposed from the top down. He was once offered a chance to be Lord of all the kingdoms of the Earth. By Satan, if you’ll remember. He turned it down, because he was not interested in the world’s model of dominance.

On a personal level, Jesus’ focus was also on voluntary transformation in peoples’ lives, rather than changing people through domination. In an earthly kingdom subservience comes compulsorily, through acquiescence to superior power. This is not what Jesus desired. He invited his followers to come willingly after him. He demanded recognition from no one.

When Jesus spoke of the growth of his kingdom in parables, two analogies he used were of the mustard seed and the yeast. In both, it is shown that the kingdom comes about through natural growth, almost unobtrusively, through the spreading of transformative power. We know this model can only come through experience with Jesus. We can see this model also in the early church, who reached out to their societies with the love, witness and power of Jesus, yet were not seeking political power and influence over others.

So, Jesus didn’t seek to establish an earthly kingdom nor to gain recognition from the powerful. He had little to do with the powerful people of his time, concentrating his efforts on those who would choose to follow him, despite the fact that most of them were low in society’s esteem. He knew that holding earthly power was not to be the goal of his kingdom and his followers.

Yes, Jesus was political. Yes, he stood against injustice and he stood for the good. Absolutely yes. But this is very different to seeking power and worldly recognition.

So how does this relate to cultural Christianity? How does this relate to “Jesus for NZ?”

Cultural Christianity came out of a historical marriage of Christianity with political power. While many, many true followers of Jesus have lived under it, as Christians we also have to acknowledge that it has a terrible legacy of violence, of domination. Many peoples were violently subjugated by cultural Christianity, many atrocities committed in the name of Christ. The result was a society where following Jesus was normalized and politicized. To me, there is no doubt that is a million miles from the kingdom vision of Jesus. The idea that Jesus would be glad and glorified in a society where the majority follow him outwardly because of social pressures without truly knowing him, and which has only come about because of past persecution of those who did not submit is appalling. This is not the Jesus I believe in, nor one I would ever want to follow.

The legacy of cultural Christianity is a historical fact. It is something that we as believers must learn to come to terms with. But how we live in our societies today is a choice. And I think it is an important one. If we choose to pursue continued power and domination of society, it affects our ability to share Christ with others. I would argue that it is “conforming to the pattern of this world,” fighting for influence and power, rather than pursuing love and justice in the context of those who do not follow Christ, as I believe is his model.

In my mind, protesting to keep a prayer at Parliament falls on this side of the line. It is not about protesting injustice. It is not about sharing Christ’s kingdom humbly with society. It is solely about demanding recognition, about a continuation of cultural Christianity.

I’m happy to be proven wrong. If you can show me how keeping prayer in our Parliament will ensure justice in our nation or will bring the Gospel closer to those who need it, then I will stand for that prayer. But I do not believe that it is so.

Conclusion

So here is my position. Prayer at Parliament has no spiritual significance, because the man who speaks the prayer has no personal relationship with Christ. Its cultural significance is as a reminder of Christian domination and political power. Jesus did not call us to spread his Gospel through political power but through transformation that only comes through experience with him. His kingdom does not move in the ways of this world, which are about power. He will reign in power, but only on his return, at the righting of all wrongs. It is not our role to try and make this happen in his absence.

This is my challenge to “Jesus for NZ.” What are you truly about?

Are you about righting injustice? I would march with you.Are you about reaching people for Jesus? I will stand with you, but I don’t think a protest march is the way that we’ll achieve that goal.

But, if your goal is protecting some idea of a Christian nation, if it is about shrieking over our loss of symbolic power, if it is about demanding recognition for Jesus from those who do not believe in his deity, then I will not stand with you.